Discussion Title: Should governments push to implement 100% renewable energy?

1. Governments should push to implement 100% renewable energy.
1.1. Pro: Climate change poses one of the greatest risk to our civilization and we should do everything we can to mitigate it.
1.1.1. Con: Pushing for 100% renewable energy is not the best way to combat climate change.
1.1.1.1. Pro: 100% renewable power is too reliant on the sun shining and wind blowing. Adopting such a policy would lead to black outs and a consequent loss in public backing.
1.1.1.1.1. Pro: Converting to modern day renewable energy makes us extremely vulnerable to natural disasters, such as droughts. If rivers were running particularly low, hydroelectric plants would struggle to make enough power.
1.1.1.2. Pro: [Electricity generation makes up less than one third of total greenhouse gas emissions​.](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&biw=1920&bih=929&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=s1ZtXLLXM-qW1fAPw_yjkAs&q=carbon+output+due+to+energy+pie+chart&oq=carbon+output+due+to+energy+pie+chart&gs_l=img.3...5473.7648..7751...0.0..0.72.663.10......1....1..gws-wiz-img.hYOeG8zVjkc#imgrc=NhfgGFh5dyz4WM:)
1.1.1.3. Pro: Instead of changing to renewable energy, lessening the automobiles's and industry's [greenhouse gases](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions) will be more beneficial.
1.1.2. Pro: The government should not only push to renewable energy but also fund research into new, cleaner, and better energy.
1.1.3. Pro: -> See discussion #4540: Humans should act to fight climate change.
1.1.4. Pro: Renewable energy sources such as hydro, wind, and solar can be used to replace the "dirtiest" methods of energy generation immediately. These are [cleaner sources of energy](https://www.greenmountainenergy.com/why-renewable-energy/benefits-of-clean-electricity/).
1.1.4.1. Con: Nuclear energy also provides a CO2 neutral way to generate electricity.
1.1.4.1.1. Pro: -> See discussion #6182: Nuclear power \([fission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission)\) is desirable for sustainable energy production
1.1.4.1.2. Con: The problem of nuclear waste and the experiences drawn from events like Fukushima and Chernobyl show that clean does not equal safe.
1.1.4.1.2.1. Con: Nuclear energy is actually "[as safe or safer](http://nuclearconnect.org/know-nuclear/talking-nuclear/top-10-myths-about-nuclear-energy)" than any other form of energy.
1.1.4.1.2.2. Con: Fewer people have been killed as a result of nuclear power than [any other](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents) major form of energy production.
1.1.4.2. Pro: Renewable energy pollutes less than coal or gas power plants.
1.1.4.3. Con: [Ever growing demand for energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption) means that we will ultimately require a further breakthrough in order to supply everyone with energy from renewable sources.
1.1.4.3.1. Con: Further breakthroughs being likely shouldn't prevent implementing currently sufficiently good renewable energy generation tech quickly.
1.1.4.4. Con: Nuclear energy produces [4 times less CO2 than solar and the same as wind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#2014_IPCC.2C_Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources%E2%80%8B) per kilowatt hour.
1.1.4.4.1. Con: Nuclear power plants can become extremely dangerous if [something goes wrong](https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx). In a situation like this, the environment would be [impacted](https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/environment/2019/05/chernobyl-disaster-what-happened-and-long-term-impact#:~:text=The%20Chernobyl%20disaster%20had%20other,some%20%24235%20billion%20in%20damages.) on a much worse scale than any CO2 emissions that were initially avoided through the use of this type of energy.
1.1.5. Pro: Renewable energy technology can help in achieving many of the [United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.](https://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/100re-sdg/)
1.1.6. Pro: Rising sea levels, more frequent weather anomalies, rising temperatures in already dry areas, increased rainfall in already wet areas, and increasingly destructive storms are some of the direct effects that have already begun to affect people all over the world.
1.1.7. Pro: Using renewable energy will make sure we, as humans, do not run out of resources due to excess consumption.
1.1.8. Con: If climate change has developed such that we can no longer reverse the effects, it is not worthwhile worrying about immediately moving to renewable energy.
1.1.8.1. Con: Moving to renewable energy will [decentralize power grids,](https://www.raconteur.net/sustainability/decentralised-energy-grid) which leads to increased efficiency, security, and natural crisis isolation.
1.1.8.2. Con: -> See discussion #8337: Man-made climate change can be reversed.
1.1.8.3. Con: A speedier movement toward renewables will help to alleviate the ill short-term effects of "dirty" energy sources.
1.1.9. Pro: Climate change should be mitigated to make the world better for future generations.
1.2. Pro: Only governments have the resources to initiate big and widely spread change.
1.2.1. Pro: This has occurred in China with the government engaging a [war on pollution](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/upshot/china-pollution-environment-longer-lives.html) and already seeing benefits.
1.3. Con: Achieving 100% renewable energy is not realistic, reliable, or even necessary.
1.3.1. Pro: 100% renewable energy is unnecessary. The earth has the capacity to function under a [specific amount of pollution](https://phys.org/news/2012-08-earth-absorbing-carbon-dioxide-emissions.html).
1.3.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.1.
1.3.3. Con: Conventional power plants also depend on weather conditions. [Nuclear plants have to shut down](https://qz.com/1348969/europes-heatwave-is-forcing-nuclear-power-plants-to-shut-down/) when cooling water gets too hot. This will be an increasing problem in the future.
1.3.4. Con: There is [sufficient solar energy](https://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar%20FAQs.pdf) to [meet the world's demand many times over](https://www.businessinsider.com/map-shows-solar-panels-to-power-the-earth-2015-9), and when well distributed would be very reliable.
1.3.4.1. Pro: By utilizing diverse energy sources \(wind, tidal, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc\), and with [advanced energy storage techniques](http://www.worldwatch.org/storage-solutions-allow-renewable-energy-demand) we can guarantee reliability, even when demand peaks.
1.3.4.2. Pro: Current solar technology is only about 20% efficient, but that still only requires surface area approximately equal to the size of Spain if we were to try and rely on 100% solar.
1.3.5. Pro: We have not currently made all the technological advances necessary to rely solely on renewable energy.
1.3.5.1. Con: Many places already rely on nearly 100% renewable energy.
1.3.5.1.1. Pro: Places relying on [\>90% renewables](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy#Places_with_near_100%_renewable_electricity) can be found in Germany, USA, Canada, Austria, Scotland, UK, New Zealand, Denmark, and Greece.
1.3.5.1.2. Pro: Countries relying completely on renewable energy [include](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy#Places_with_near_100%_renewable_electricity) Iceland \(99.9%\), Costa Rica \(99%\), Norway \(100%\), Paraguay \(100%\), Tajikistan \(100%\), and Tokelau \(100%\).
1.3.5.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.4.3.
1.3.5.3. Pro: We currently do not have a comparable energy source in terms of energy density \(per unit of mass\). For certain applications, such as airplanes, that makes it impossible to rely on other forms of energy.
1.3.5.4. Con: Part of pushing for completely renewable energy as fast as possible will be funding further research into these technologies, while using those we already have to provide as much energy as it can.
1.3.5.5. Pro: Doing it as fast as possible will stress the economy by obligating the incorporation of economically inviable technologies and will stress the population that is not prepared for the fast-paced transition.
1.3.5.6. Pro: Significant development will be needed into the storage of the electricity, as renewable energy cannot be simply increased to meet consumers immediate demands.
1.4. Con: Renewable energy is not economically competitive with fossil fuels.
1.4.1. Con: Solar electricity is now the cheapest to produce 2cts Kwh. Only storage remain expensive 10cts Kwh. And [new ways of storage are found.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2u6EDwumdQ&t=62s)
1.4.2. Con: Although 100% renewable energy is not economically competitive with fossil fuels, if the US and other major countries implemented a Green New Deal, [renewable costs would plummet rapidly.](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/irena-renewable-energy-competitive-fossil-fuels-2020)
1.4.3. Pro: Coal and gas power plants do already exist. There will be less cost if we can keep those.
1.4.3.1. Con: There are[hidden costs](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/04/uk-facing-eu-outrage-over-timebomb-of-north-sea-oil-rigs) in all energy extraction/production. Fossil fuels are running out and hurting the environment. These resources have other uses beyond mere energy and should be conserved for those purposes.
1.4.4. Pro: Nuclear power is the most economical choice.
1.4.4.1. Pro: Nuclear power is the lowest-cost form of power per kwh as it is only [2.1 cents](https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/) per kwh.
1.4.4.1.1. Pro: Nuclear power plants are expensive to build but relatively cheap to run: the operating cost of these plants is [lower](http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx) than almost all fossil fuel competitors.
1.4.4.1.1.1. Con: The levelized cost of energy of Nuclear power is over [three times that](https://www.lazard.com/media/450337/lazard-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-110.pdf) of some renewable sources \(onshore wind and solar\).
1.4.4.1.1.1.1. Pro: Nuclear fission is economically obsolete. [Comparative Costs per Megawatt Hour](http://www.solarcellcentral.com/images/avg_cost_of_energy.jpg)
1.4.4.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: Utility scale renewables now cost less per KWH over a 20 year life cycle than any other means of power production. Costs continue to drop 10%-20%+ per year.
1.4.4.1.1.1.2. Con: The linked document specifically said they didn't account for certain factors, like intermittency of the renewable sources. These cannot be used for baseload power generation without grid-scale energy storage, which would greatly increase the cost. Nuclear doesn't have that problem.
1.4.4.1.1.1.3. Con: Lazard's costs are US-centric and are reflecting first-of-a-kind nuclear plants built by inexperienced supply chains. Series production costs are far lower in e.g. China and South Korea and would be so in the US too, according to how industrial learning works in general. [Historical construction costs of nuclear reactors.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516300106)
1.4.4.1.1.1.4. Con: The IEA provides a much less biased view of LCOE for energy sources, and they rank nuclear as one of the lowest cost baseload technologies [Projected Costs of Generating Electricity](https://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/eleccost2015sum.pdf) Off Shore Wind can be very low cost, but it is not the technology for base load power.
1.4.4.1.1.2. Con: When waste management is [included](http://www.grisanik.com/blog/real-cost-of-nuclear-energy/), nuclear power does not seem very cost effective compared to wind and PV.
1.4.4.1.1.2.1. Con: Nuclear waste from the Uranium Fuel Cycle is [approximately 1/300th](http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis) the waste produced by solar panels, when generation is compared in [cubic meters per kWh of energy produced](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56a45d683b0be33df885def6/t/594afa4a1b631b702e72e5ee/1498085994455/Waste+Production+per+TWh.001.jpeg).
1.4.4.1.1.2.1.1. Con: This comparison does not take into account the toxicity of the waste
1.4.4.1.1.2.1.1.1. Pro: The comparison looks at cubic meters of waste produced per TWh of energy generated. Volumes of waste, not toxicity nor what can be done with the waste \(Recycled, reused, etc.\).
1.4.4.1.1.2.1.2. Con: This is an irrelevant analysis, comparing m3 for waste with wildly varying properties. It is not about the amount of waste, but about the impact of the waste produced, and the required treatment for it.
1.4.4.1.1.2.2. Con: When all external costs are included, wind and PV do not seem very cost effective compared to nuclear.
1.4.4.1.1.2.3. Con: Newer reactor designs can use most of the long-lived "waste" as fuel. The remaining radioactive waste is minuscule in volume and can be safely stored on-site.
1.4.4.1.1.2.3.1. Pro: Nuclear Waste can be completely reprocessed in modern reactors such as the [Fast Neutron Molten Salt Reactor](https://articles.thmsr.nl/the-flibe-energy-lftr49-the-triple-ace-in-nuclear-gen-iv-design-ea9bffcd71dd), resulting in a mass of fission products of less than 5% and a reduction from approximately 24,000 to 300 years until radioactive decay falls below background radiation.
1.4.4.1.1.2.3.1.1. Con: Radioactive waste radiating another 300 years is not "completely reprocessed", and safe storage of that waste is still an issue.
1.4.4.1.1.2.3.1.1.1. Con: The volume is so much smaller that it could be stored on site.
1.4.4.1.1.2.3.1.2. Con: This is true for future societies, but at our current rate we do not have time to create these modern reactors, especially since most countries today have old reactors in use. The transisition to newer reactors would take too long
1.4.4.1.1.2.3.1.2.1. Con: The mean time to build a nuclear power plant is [7.5 years](http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/).
1.4.4.1.1.2.3.1.2.1.1. Con: The US has existing nuclear generation, many of which can be safely retrofitted to last until the 2030's.
1.4.4.1.1.2.3.1.2.1.2. Con: The developing world has a greater rate of energy growth than the US and has been successful in procuring nuclear generation built by South Korea, China, or Russia. For example the NPP's in the UAE coming online in 2018.
1.4.4.1.1.2.3.1.2.1.3. Pro: [Fermi 1 and 2 were constructed in approximately 7 and 13 years respectively in circa 1960s.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Fermi_Nuclear_Generating_Station)
1.4.4.1.1.2.3.1.2.1.4. Con: The deployment time for nuclear power is [much longer than seven years](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629618300598?via%3Dihub#!). It takes approximately thirty years for full deployment. In contrast, renewable energy takes approximately nine years, and results in more energy generation.
1.4.4.1.1.2.3.1.3. Con: Fast-neutron reactors are much more expensive than conventional thermal-neutron reactors, so they don't get built.
1.4.4.1.1.2.3.2. Pro: This [concept](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/business/energy-environment/atomic-goal-800-years-of-power-from-waste.html) provides us with enough fuel for the next hundreds of years, without mining for new uranium.
1.4.4.1.1.2.3.3. Pro: If liquid fuel is used, it can [remain in the reactor longer than traditional solid fuel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poPLSgbSO6k&feature=youtu.be&t=335) \(which begins to break down, and therefore needs to be removed, [after just 4% of its potential energy is used](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poPLSgbSO6k&feature=youtu.be&t=335)\). This allows more of the fuel to be efficiently used, reducing the amount of waste that is generated.
1.4.4.1.1.2.4. Pro: The cost of the storage bunker for nuclear waste material makes nuclear fission a [uneconomical](https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/nuclear-waste-fiasco-100450) choice. For example, nuclear waste management cost up to $65 billion in USA
1.4.4.1.1.2.5. Pro: Costs can be expected to skyrocket during the millennia.
1.4.4.1.1.2.5.1. Pro: Waste management needs to continue for 100.000 or 1.000.000 years or so. Mankind has no experience whatsoever providing anything that properly functions that long. Doing anything for the first time tends to provide unpleasant surprises. So we set ourselves up for an unpleasant surprise \(sometime within those 100.000 or 1.000.000 years\).
1.4.4.1.1.2.5.1.1. Con: No matter what solution we come up with it will not have been attempted before, this is no reason not to try.
1.4.4.1.2. Con: A new nuclear plant in the U.S. costs about [$9 billion](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-31/the-dream-of-cheap-nuclear-power-is-over) to build. This is more than 1,000 times as much as a new fracking well, and more than 3 times as much as the world’s biggest and most expensive solar plant.
1.4.4.1.2.1. Con: The world's most expensive solar plant is the [Crystal River plant](https://futurism.com/a-major-florida-utility-company-is-investing-6-billion-in-solar-instead-of-nuclear) in Florida, which will cost $6 billion dollars, approximately the same cost as one of the originally planned AP-1000 reactors that were to be built. It will also put out approximately 10/57ths the output.
1.4.4.1.2.2. Con: Nuclear does not need to cost as much as it does.
1.4.4.1.2.2.1. Pro: [Small modular reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor) can be mass-produced in a factory and then used as [drop-in replacements for coal-fired boilers](https://www.economist.com/node/17647651), thus re-using existing turbines, generators, and transmission lines.
1.4.4.1.2.2.1.1. Con: Numerous small-scale reactors increases the risk of security breaches and safety hazards
1.4.4.1.2.2.1.1.1. Con: Small modular reactors would be sealed at the factory and buried on site.
1.4.4.1.2.2.1.2. Con: Small modular reactors are currently [mostly unproven](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_small_modular_reactor_designs), mere designs.
1.4.4.1.2.2.1.3. Con: People generally do not like to live close to a nuclear power plant.
1.4.4.1.2.2.2. Pro: A large cost in the construction of nuclear power plants is red tape.
1.4.4.1.2.2.3. Pro: Costs can be brought down by the re-use of existing designs, which speeds up regulatory approval and reduces engineering costs.
1.4.4.1.2.3. Con: The absolute cost is much less important than the cost per watt. Nuclear plants have extremely high output, so they're quite competitive in terms of necessary cost.
1.4.4.1.3. Pro: China is working on reducing cost of nuclear reactors, for instance at the Yangjiang nuclear power plant, where six 1GW reactors are being built for the cost of only [$10.2 billion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangjiang_Nuclear_Power_Station).
1.4.4.1.3.1. Con: In China they have different safety levels than in Europe or Canada and can build cheaper reactors.
1.4.4.1.3.1.1. Pro: According to a presentation by [Yun Zhou](https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/36th-wna-symposium-zhou.pdf) at Harvard's Belfer centre, China "has an incomplete regulatory system" for its power plants.
1.4.4.1.3.1.2. Con: In a presentation [Yun Zhou](https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/36th-wna-symposium-zhou.pdf) gave at Harvard's Belfer Centre he concludes that "China’s nuclear safety regime is on par with global standards".
1.4.4.1.4. Con: -> See 1.4.4.1.1.1.
1.4.4.1.5. Con: -> See 1.4.4.1.1.2.
1.4.4.1.6. Con: Nuclear power is getting more expensive due to increased safety requirements when renewable sources are scaling, improving and seeing costs significantly come done, even offshore wind.
1.4.4.1.6.1. Pro: An [analysis](https://www.ft.com/content/21305834-5376-11e8-84f4-43d65af59d43) of the history of reactors concluded the following: nuclear power projects are more expensive than in the early 1980s and nuclear construction lead times have increased two-fold in the past 50 years.
1.4.4.1.6.2. Con: [Increased safety regulations](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030142159290006N) has made factory designs more complex and correspondingly more costly. The development of new and simpler reactor designs may lower the costs of nuclear power.
1.4.4.1.7. Con: UK Hinkely Point nuclear power station project has a guaranteed price of [92.5 GBP/MWh](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-nuclear-costs/uk-hinkley-plant-could-cost-38-bln-in-electricity-payment-top-ups-watchdog-idUSKBN19D2WP) whereas the latest offshore tenders came in at [57.5 GBP/MWh](https://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1444146/uk-offshore-falls-5750-latest-cfd-round).
1.4.4.1.7.1. Con: This is an apples to oranges comparison. The nuclear power figure represents a steady base load source, while the wind power is intermittent. Most of the time you won't get the maximum wattage and the energy will have to come from other sources. In practice, this means expensive "[peaker plants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant)" burning fossil fuels to even it out. Therefore, wind is still more expensive.
1.4.4.1.7.2. Con: A different project approach at Hinkley Point could have [reduced the electricity price to £48.50 per megawatt hour](http://www.theweek.co.uk/60778/hinkley-point-will-cost-public-double-the-amount-it-should)
1.4.4.1.8. Con: New nuclear has to have extremely high guaranteed prices for energy produced in order to convince anyone to build them. [en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station)
1.4.4.1.8.1. Pro: -> See 1.4.4.1.7.
1.4.4.1.9. Con: Long build times and enormous capital outlays for nuclear fission reactors are economically uncompetitive in market of fast build wind/solar + batteries which have rapidly diminishing construction costs and TCO. [ajc.com](https://www.ajc.com/business/plant-vogtle-georgia-nuclear-renaissance-now-financial-quagmire/5l16IFMFICknSCeI7RXG6J/)
1.4.4.2. Pro: Nuclear power plants can also very efficiently generate hydrogen, a carbon-free fuel usable in electric fuel cells and internal combustion engines.
1.4.4.2.1. Pro: Nuclear plants can electrolyze or thermolyze ocean water into hydrogen.
1.4.4.2.1.1. Con: Any conventional electric generation source can electrolyze ocean water.
1.4.4.2.2. Con: Hydrogen fuel cells are less efficient than the power grid.
1.4.4.2.2.1. Con: Not all energy can be distributed through an electricity grid.
1.4.4.2.2.1.1. Pro: Vehicles \(cars, ships, planes\) require an internal power source. They can't be plugged into the grid and move at the same time.
1.4.4.2.2.2. Con: The use of Heat for thermolysis of water and hydrogen storage can be considered as an effective solution for load displacement and energy storage resulting in greater efficiency of the electricity grid to balance stochastic renewables and to match demand.
1.4.4.2.2.3. Pro: All-electric vehicles manage an overall power-plant-to-wheel efficiency rating of 73 percent, compared to 22 percent for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles [www.greencarreports.com](https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1113175_electric-cars-win-on-energy-efficiency-vs-hydrogen-gasoline-diesel-analysis) [insideevs.com](https://insideevs.com/efficiency-compared-battery-electric-73-hydrogen-22-ice-13/)
1.4.4.2.2.4. Pro: Power grid transmission is 85% to 95% efficient. [hub.globalccsinstitute.com](https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/energy-efficiency-technologies-overview-report/6-efficiency-and-power-grids) [blog.schneider-electric.com](https://blog.schneider-electric.com/energy-management-energy-efficiency/2013/03/25/how-big-are-power-line-losses/) [www.eia.gov](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3)
1.4.4.2.3. Pro: The synergy of multiple production processes can boost the system efficiency of nuclear stations \([oecd-nea.org](https://www.oecd-nea.org/science/pubs/2006/6122-production-hydrogen.pdf)\) \([www4vip.inl.gov](http://www4vip.inl.gov/research/next-generation-nuclear-plant/)\). Synergy of multiple production processes is high-temperature heat from high-temperature gas-reactors used to efficiently create hydrogen, as a fuel or resource for the industry.
1.4.4.2.4. Con: Hydrogen is an impractical and dangerous way to store energy.
1.4.4.2.4.1. Pro: Liquid hydrogen must be kept at very low temperatures \(\< 33 Kelvin\) to remain stable as a liquid. To do so requires special cryogenic storage, which if compromised or improperly vented, would mean the liquid could very rapidly boil-off to over 845x its volume as a gas. Hydrogen can become dangerous far quicker than similar fuels, such as gasoline, due to how quickly it can evaporate and fill an area with combustible gas, and due to its specific energy. \([airproducts.com](https://www.airproducts.com/~/media/Files/PDF/company/safetygram-9.pdf)\)
1.4.4.2.4.2. Pro: Even when liquified, hydrogen's energy density is 1/4 that of gasoline.
1.4.4.2.4.2.1. Con: Liquefied hydrogen at 4x the volume of gasoline is still practical for land transport applications.
1.4.4.2.4.3. Con: There are [many other ways to store hydrogen](https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage) besides cryogenic storage.
1.4.4.2.4.4. Con: The specific energy of liquefied hydrogen \(energy by weight\) is 3x that of conventional fuels. This is important for replacing aviation fuels.
1.4.4.3. Con: -> See 1.4.4.1.2.
1.4.4.4. Pro: Nuclear power plants can be built fast.
1.4.4.4.1. Pro: Nuclear deployment rates have been [faster](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6299/547.full) than all renewable energy deployment rates in countries that have committed to nuclear power, such as Sweden and France.
1.4.4.4.2. Con: The scope of planning for nuclear power plants is putting nuclear energy at a disadvantage.
1.4.4.4.2.1. Pro: New nuclear \(fission generated\) power plants can only be deployed in a megaproject scale \($1B or more, multiyear construction time\). Megaprojects are by nature slow endeavors and require a centralized political setting.
1.4.4.4.2.1.1. Con: The [Akademik Lomonosov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademik_Lomonosov) was completed in just 3 years at a cost of $232 million, proving the parent false by counterexample.
1.4.4.4.2.2. Pro: Most renewables can be deployed faster.
1.4.4.4.2.3. Pro: Most renewables can to some degree scale with their environment and the social and political configuration present.
1.4.4.4.2.3.1. Con: That fails to take into account the area required to produce that power.  If you wanted to power Los Angeles solely with wind and solar, you'd have to cover thousands of square miles with solar powers or turbines to even come close.
1.4.4.4.3. Pro: -> See 1.4.4.1.2.2.1.
1.4.4.4.4. Pro: -> See 1.4.4.1.1.2.3.1.2.1.
1.4.4.5. Con: -> See 1.4.4.1.1.1.
1.4.4.6. Con: -> See 1.4.4.1.1.2.
1.4.4.7. Con: -> See 1.4.4.1.6.
1.4.4.8. Con: There are other more economical ways of generating power.
1.4.4.8.1. Pro: A [Traveling-Wave Reactor](https://whatisnuclear.com/twr.html) \(TWR\) can function, for the most part, on waste uranium which is a byproduct of the current reactor design.
1.4.4.8.1.1. Pro: As it runs on its own waste, making and consuming its own fuel, It doesn't require constant refuelling and waste removal. The companies currently developing TWR believe this makes nuclear power safer and cheaper.
1.4.4.8.2. Pro: Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are far safer then other nuclear and dirty plants and cheaper then most power generating methods.[www.youtube.com](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY)
1.4.4.9. Con: According to [EIA](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html) it's only the second most economic choice \(behind large scale water power\), but costs about ⅔ of the next cheapest option.
1.4.4.9.1. Con: They don't include the costs for caring for radioactive waste for the next millions of years nor do they include the costs that disasters could cause.
1.4.4.9.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.4.4.1.1.2.
1.4.4.10. Con: Traditional nuclear facilities in the United States waste [about 96%](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poPLSgbSO6k&feature=youtu.be&t=335) of the possible energy they could extract from their uranium fuel.
1.4.4.10.1. Con: If nuclear power plants could be made more efficient than they currently are \(and there are [several possible ways](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poPLSgbSO6k&feature=youtu.be&t=335) of doing this\) then nuclear power might be easily able to out-compete other forms of power.
1.4.5. Con: Fossil fuels only achieve the cost efficiency because of subsidies.
1.4.6. Con: Fossil fuel costs do not include the ecological damage they cause to our environment.
1.4.6.1. Pro: In the long term, it is beneficial to switch to renewable energy as soon as possible as the extra costs of climate change \(which are too long to list\) will eventually be more and more severe.
1.4.7. Con: Market cannot be considered equally or more important than the environment, which is the basis of human existence.
1.4.7.1. Pro: Humans are born for life, not to be economic entities.
1.4.7.1.1. Con: Human societies also need to organize their productivity to survive. The economy of market is the best economic organization, and it is based on competition.
1.4.7.1.1.1. Con: The idea that market economy is the best economic organization[has been highly criticized](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy#Criticisms).
1.4.8. Con: [Swanson's Law](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/origins-of-the-solar-learning-curve) states that for every cumulative doubling of production volume, the cost of [PV modules](https://openei.org/wiki/Definition:PV_module) drops by an average of 20%.
1.5. Con: Pushing for 100% RE endangers jobs in many industries, ranging from oil to coal.
1.5.1. Con: Job loss is a normal feature of technological progress. Maintaining obsolete and harmful industries just for the sake of jobs doesn't make sense.
1.5.2. Con: The educational agenda in many countries has to shift towards more sustainability based education at schools and universities. Especially engineers and technicians are much needed by the RE industry. The important thing is to keep people from pursuing a career in the fossil fuel based industries and thereby prevent job losses in the future.
1.5.2.1. Con: Fossil fuels are building blocks for petrochemical products - fertilizer, concrete, and plastics to name a few - and education in these processes will be integral to modern economies.
1.5.3. Con: Once companies switch to renewable energy many jobs would be retained and also created as companies retrain current employees and train new ones thus keeping and adding jobs in the industry
1.5.4. Con: Governments have to pursue comprehensive programs to use the potential of jobs generated by further RE promotion.
1.5.5. Con: The negative environmental and social consequences of continuing use of non-renewable energy sources will probably outweigh the short-term employment losses while world economies fully transition to renewables.
1.6. Con: The existing electricity grids in many western countries are not made to support an RE based energy market.
1.6.1. Pro: Using renewable energy sources as the primary source of energy will require some heavy adjustments to many established western electricity grids and infrastructure. For example, where geographic factors do not allow the same amount of electricity generation in all places \(example: more wind near the shores\).
1.6.2. Con: A Renewable energy network produces more power where it is actually needed. \(e.g. solar cells on roof top of buildings\). Thus the RE based energy market doesn't require as many powerlines as the current energy distribution system.
1.6.3. Con: The only real barrier to using existing electricity grids for renewables is wide availability of battery storage. If each household has their own battery storage managed by the grid it actually makes it [more stable.](http://theconversation.com/how-energy-storage-is-starting-to-rewire-the-electricity-industry-93259)
1.6.4. Con: This is not a counter to the position. If a nation does not have the required infrastructure, advancements in the infrastructure must inherently be part of the push of 100% renewable energy.
1.7. Pro: Renewable energy technologies give many people the opportunity to become "[prosumers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosumer)", consumers who generate their own energy and sell any excess.
1.7.1. Con: A multitude of small inputs into the electric grid [creates safety issues](http://www.columbiapowerpartners.com/solar/net-metering-for-renewable-energy-systems/) as each individual input must be isolated to safety work on power lines.
1.7.2. Con: Net metering forces utilities to pay individual producers domestic rates for electricity rather than wholesale. This increases the price for everyone, with an oversized impact on people unable to afford their own generation system.
1.7.3. Pro: Everyone having their own power generation would mean that it would be impossible for black outs to occur.